8 new gun control bills introduced yesterday

[Brown Trout]

"Supreme Court Rules for Gun Rights (June 26, 2008): The Supreme Court rules, 5–4, that the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a gun, but insists that the ruling "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."


So The People will wait to see and let their rights be once again decided against them?

For this reason the ratifiers ammended the original Constitution with ammendments 1-10. Those are not a list of rights that were extended to us, they are a list of additional restraints against our "Federal" Government.

 

[JGRuby]

My baseline is...We the people. We should all read the Declaration on Independence again, often. It clearly states who should have the last word. We the people, not the supreme. The supremes should rule by what We think is constitutional. Not them alone.

Which people - there are over 317 million of them including myself.

James Ruby

 

[fd15k]

Which people - there are over 317 million of them including myself.

James Ruby

That's exactly the point. Some forum members believe that attempts "to take their guns" come strictly from the government and certain politicians. They conveniently forget that those attempts are actually backed up by the will of millions of other Americans who have different needs and beliefs. They also conveniently forget that as long as the line is not crossed (and that's for SCOTUS to decide, and not NWFA "Constitutional Scholars"), that's what we call "democracy" in our so-called "republic".

 

[Father of four]

Which people - there are over 317 million of them including myself.

James Ruby

The legal citizens of the United States Of America. Including you.

 

[Father of four]

That's exactly the point. Some forum members believe that attempts "to take their guns" come strictly from the government and certain politicians. They conveniently forget that those attempts are actually backed up by the will of millions of other Americans who have different needs and beliefs. They also conveniently forget that as long as the line is not crossed (and that's for SCOTUS to decide, and not NWFA "Constitutional Scholars"), that's what we call "democracy" in our so-called "republic".

Some are to authoritarian to understand where some freedom lovers are coming from.

I give up fd15k. You clearly can not or refuse to understand what I am saying.





For everyone else...

I believe that the founding fathers intent was to put together a government to help keep the rights and freedoms of The People in this country, not take them away. That government is to be ran with the will of The People in mind...the United States Citizens. If that government decides to do anything that is against the will of The People or not within the will of The People then The People have the right to hold that government accountable. If the government is left to do its own will outside of The Peoples will then we are no longer a free people in our country and against what I think was the founding fathers intent.

If the government (supreme court included) disagrees with the will of The People and makes/allows laws contrary to what the people believe and think then do we need the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or The Constitution any longer?




<broken link removed>

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or
to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear private arms."
Tench Coxe

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."
James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States)
assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise
it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of
religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[fd15k]

Some are to authoritarian to understand where some freedom lovers are coming from.

I give up fd15k. You clearly can not or refuse to understand what I am saying.

I call some of them "freedom whiners". Something like "I used to drive my monster truck to the gym every day, but now I can only afford to drive it to work. Government took my freedom of movement and made me fat!"

 

[JGRuby]

The legal citizens of the United States Of America. Including you.

SO playing devils advocate and assuming say 250 million of them are anti 2A - where does that leave use as gun owners? Whose rules should our leaders be follwoing the majority or the minority when it comes to making policy? I would argue based on the gun buying frenzy that us gun owners arent really looking out for each other, otherwise we would be buying only what we needed.

James Ruby

James Ruby

 

[fd15k]

SO playing devils advocate and assuming say 250 million of them are anti 2A - where does that leave use as gun owners? Whose rules should our leaders be follwoing the majority or the minority when it comes to making policy? I would argue based on the gun buying frenzy that us gun owners arent really looking out for each other, otherwise we would be buying only what we needed.

James Ruby

James Ruby

Policy does cater to the will of majority. Constitution protects everybody equally, so as long as the policy doesn't cross the line, we're in the good shape.

 

[Father of four]

SO playing devils advocate and assuming say 250 million of them are anti 2A - where does that leave use as gun owners? Whose rules should our leaders be follwoing the majority or the minority when it comes to making policy? I would argue based on the gun buying frenzy that us gun owners arent really looking out for each other, otherwise we would be buying only what we needed.

James Ruby

James Ruby

Yeah I would hate it but I would practice what I preach and go along with the majority. It would suck but I'd do it.

 

[JGRuby]

Policy does cater to the will of majority. Constitution protects everybody equally, so as long as the policy doesn't cross the line, we're in the good shape.

There are things that are suppose to be and those that actually are, and you think that our government elected officials will not listen to the majority of the voters? Even though I would like to agree with what you say and feel that is corect my mind tells me better based on what I have seen.

James Ruby

 

[Father of four]

Majority rules.

Ask congress...2/3 rd's wins right? I didn't like it but you could also ask President Obama.

 

[Father of four]

Also majority wins in the supreme court.

 

[Brown Trout]

SO playing devils advocate and assuming say 250 million of them are anti 2A - where does that leave use as gun owners? Whose rules should our leaders be follwoing the majority or the minority when it comes to making policy? I would argue based on the gun buying frenzy that us gun owners arent really looking out for each other, otherwise we would be buying only what we needed.

James Ruby

James Ruby

It is a moot point. The 2nd Amendment is a restraint against the Federal gov. in regards to firearms. The only way the Federal government is constitutionally allowed to restrict gun ownership is through another constitutional amendment. That is much more difficult than a popular vote. The Federal government must be held at bay on this issue.

 

[JGRuby]

It is a moot point. The 2nd Amendment is a restraint against the Federal gov. in regards to firearms. The only way the Federal government is constitutionally allowed to restrict gun ownership is through another constitutional amendment. That is much more difficult than a popular vote. The Federal government must be held at bay on this issue.

I hope you are right but we will see.

James Ruby

 

[timac]

The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights. If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.
Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.
Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
​

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.
I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

 

[Brown Trout]

This idea that the Federal gov. can mandate, or better yet -- "infringe" on our secured and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, just because a majority may want it (very debatable) rubs me wrong and it should everyone else too. That right does not come from the Federal gov. so it cannot be taken by the Federal gov. If the ratifiers had certain restrictions in mind that were allowable, they would have placed them there.

So far as I read the 2nd it does not say:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by a majority of citizens in a popular vote.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by a majority in both houses of Congress.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by reasonable regulations.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that weren't envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

I have no problem with a gun restriction debate, as long as it is on a constitutional basis.

 

[fd15k]

There are things that are suppose to be and those that actually are, and you think that our government elected officials will not listen to the majority of the voters? Even though I would like to agree with what you say and feel that is corect my mind tells me better based on what I have seen.

James Ruby

So you're saying people don't like what say senator Feinstein is doing, but keep on re-electing her some 20 years in a row ? Some weird nation...

 

[fd15k]

It is a moot point. The 2nd Amendment is a restraint against the Federal gov. in regards to firearms. The only way the Federal government is constitutionally allowed to restrict gun ownership is through another constitutional amendment. That is much more difficult than a popular vote. The Federal government must be held at bay on this issue.

You brought it up just another day. Not against the Federal government. Against all levels of the government. There is a bubblegumload of case law to support this view, regardless of how you interpret the background of the 14th.

 

[Brown Trout]

You brought it up just another day. Not against the Federal government. Against all levels of the government. There is a bubblegumload of case law to support this view, regardless of how you interpret the background of the 14th.

The difference between our views of constitutionality is I use original intent for my context when I view the legality of something. You seem to utilize a log of mutating case law.

No doubt, there is case law to support it. That is obvious. But what does the Preamble of the Bill of Rights say about the first 10 amendments?

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Republican opponents of ratification of the original unamended Constitution had not been persuaded by the Federalists' promises that the powers of the federal congress and courts would stay only in the areas expressly mentioned by the Constitution. The entire thrust of the Republican argument was about restricting the power of the Federal gov. The Bill of Rights is framed in the First and Tenth Amendment, with both specific restrictions on the power of Congress.

James Madison actually proposed an amendment at that time, which would have given federal courts power to supervise state governments when it came to speech, the press, and religion. It was so unpopular that it wasn't even sent to the states.

I have rambled and digressed. For the record, I actually enjoy your posts because it is important to be intellectually honest in debates and I think you are. I just disagree with you on what is ultimately a states rights issue (in my mind).

 

[jjackffrost]

“Tyrants preserve themselves by sowing fear and mistrust among the citizens by means of spies, by distracting them with foreign wars, by eliminating men of spirit who might lead a revolution, by humbling the people, and making them incapable of decisive action…” ... Aristotle